DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 6 November 2025 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-21 remain pending in this application. Claim(s) 21 is new.
The amendment to the claims has overcome the §112(b) rejections set forth in the office action mailed 11 August 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 16, 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Metcalfe (U.S. Pre-grant Publication 2006/0283171), hereinafter Metcalfe.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Metcalfe discloses a system for generating thrust (Title), the system comprising:
a thruster body (Figure 6B) having
a funnel (the portion of the thruster from the electrode, 3, to the middle intermediate electrode, 77, is a funnel – See annotated figure below for clarification) with an opening at a first end of the thruster body (the opening defined by the first electrode, 3, is the opening at the first end), the funnel configured to receive neutral particles and cause ionization of the neutral particles (Paragraph 0113 – neutral particles are received by the funnel and are ionized by a particle generator within the funnel, therefore the funnel is configured to receive and ionize the neutral particles), resulting in corresponding ions and electrons (Intended use – It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex paste Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) – The limitations are functional limitations which is performed by the claimed structure and does not imply any additional structure. The prior art discloses the claimed structure and thus would perform the same as the claimed structure thus meeting the functional limitation of the claim), and
an ion accelerator (Paragraph 0113 - the portion of the thruster from the middle intermediate electrode, 77, and the electrode, 4, is the ion accelerator since the ions are accelerated between the electrodes – See annotated figure below for clarification) extending from the funnel to a second end of the thruster body (the ion accelerator extends from the end of the funnel at the middle intermediate electrode, 77, to the second end, at the electrode, 4), the ion accelerator configured to receive the ionized particles from the funnel and cause ejection of the ionized particles from an opening at the second end of the thruster body, generating thrust (Paragraphs 0113-0114 – the accelerator received charged particles from the funnel and exhausts them from the opening at the second end defined by the electrode, 4, thereby generating thrust).
PNG
media_image1.png
302
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Metcalfe discloses the invention as claimed and discussed above. Metcalfe further discloses the system includes a plurality of conductive rings, 3, 4 and 77, including a first plurality of concentrically arranged conductive rings (the first electrode/conductive ring, 3, and the leftmost intermediate electrode/conductive ring, 77, is the first plurality of conductive rings that are concentric about a horizontal central axis) separated by an insulator (Paragraph 0113 – the separation between the electrodes/rings is maintained by an insulator, 7) in the funnel (the first plurality of rings is provided in the funnel) and a second plurality of concentrically arranged conductive rings (the second electrode/conductive ring, 4, and the rightmost intermediate electrode/conductive ring, 77, is the second plurality of conductive rings that are concentric about a horizontal central axis) separated by an insulator (Paragraph 0113 – the separation between the electrodes/rings is maintained by an insulator, 7) in the ion accelerator (the second plurality of rings is provided in the ion accelerator).
Regarding Claim 3, Metcalfe discloses the invention as claimed and discussed above. Metcalfe further discloses the rings of the first plurality of conductive rings having decreasing radii as the distance between the rings and the first end of the thruster body increases (the second ring/electrode, 77, of the first plurality of rings in the funnel has a radius that is smaller than the radius of the first electrode, 3, which is located at the first end, therefore the radii decreases from left to right, i.e. getting further from the first end) and the rings of the second plurality of conductive rings have substantially constant radii (the electrodes/rings of the second plurality of rings in the ion accelerator are substantially the same/constant).
Regarding Claim 16, Metcalfe discloses the invention as claimed and discussed above. Metcalfe further discloses the funnel has an exhaust opening that feeds into the ion accelerator (the opening at the right of the funnel, i.e. exhaust opening, is connected to and feds the left opening of the ion accelerator).
Regarding Claim 19, Metcalfe discloses the invention as claimed and discussed above. It is noted that the limitation “the ion funnel is configured to cause emission of a quantity of electrons sufficient to neutralize the ejected ionized particles” is Intended use – It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex paste Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) – The limitations are functional limitations which is performed by the claimed structure and does not imply any additional structure. The prior art discloses the claimed structure and thus would perform the same as the claimed structure thus meeting the functional limitation of the claim). Thus the structure of Claim 19 is disclosed by Metcalfe.
Regarding Independent Claim 21, Metcalfe a method for generating thrust using particles in an atmosphere (Title – Paragraph 0003), the method including:
providing a thruster body (Figure 6B) in the atmosphere (Paragraph 0003 – the thruster is used in the atmosphere;
ingesting the particles in the atmosphere into a first end of a thruster body (Figure 6B – the particles of the medium, 1, are ingested in the left/first end of the thruster body);
causing ionization of the particles in the thruster body (Paragraph 0113 – neutral particles are received by the funnel and are ionized by a particle generator within the funnel, therefore the funnel is configured to receive and ionize the neutral particles), the ionization generating ions and electrons (Paragraphs 0077 and 0113 – the ionization produces ions and electrons);
accelerating the ions in the thruster body (Paragraph 0113 – the ions are accelerated by the electrodes), causing ejection of the ions from a second end of the thruster body (Paragraph 0113-0114 – the charged particles/ions are ejected from the exit, 2); and
guiding the electrons resulting from the ionization of the particles toward the second end of the thruster body where they combine with and neutralize the ejected ions (Paragraph 0098 – the electrons/opposite polarity charges from the ion generator are provided to the exit to neutralize the ejected ions).
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moorer (U.S. Patent No. 8,205,838), hereinafter Moorer.
Regarding Independent Claim 20, Moorer discloses a method for generating thrust using particles in an atmosphere (Figure 6), the method including:
ingesting particles into a first end of a thruster body (particles are ingested into the thruster body, 604, at the first end with inlet, 612);
causing ionization of the particles in the thruster body (Column 9, Lines 2-12 – particles are ionized within the thruster body), the ionization generating ions and electrons (the ionization produces ions, 640, and electrons, 632);
accelerating the ions in the thruster body (Column 9, Lines 2-12 – the ions are ejected/accelerated from the thruster body and thus are accelerated inside the thruster body), causing ejection of the ions from a second end of the thruster body (Column 9, Lines 2-12 – the ions are ejected/accelerated from the thruster body).
guiding the electrons resulting from the ionization of the particles toward the second end of the thruster body where they combine with and neutralize the ejected ions (Figure 6 – Column 9, Lines 4-12 – the electrons from ionization are captured by the anode, 608, and guided to the cathode, 624, to combine and neutralize the ions exhausted by the system).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 4-9, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metcalfe in view of Roy (U.S. Patent No. 9,228,570), hereinafter Roy.
Regarding Claim 4, Metcalfe discloses the invention as claimed and discussed above. Metcalfe does not disclose a radio frequency signal generator configured to generate a radio frequency signal that is supplied to the first plurality of conductive rings and the second plurality of conductive rings.
However, Roy teaches a propulsion system (Title) with a radio frequency signal generator configured to generate a radio frequency signal that is supplied to a plurality of conductive rings (Column 19, Lines 55-62 – the power source is a radio frequency signal generator as it provides power at a radio frequency to the conductors/electrodes).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Metcalfe by making the power source of Metcalfe a radio frequency signal generator configured to generate a radio frequency signal that is supplied to the first plurality of conductive rings and the second plurality of conductive rings, as taught by Roy, in order to result in a smooth flow of propellant and increased thrust (Roy – Column 2, Lines 22-33).
Regarding Claim 5, Metcalfe in view of Roy disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. Metcalfe in view of Roy, as discussed so far, do not disclose a phase of the radio frequency signal at any one of the conductive rings is shifted relative to a phase of the radio frequency signal at conductive rings adjacent to the conductive ring.
However, Roy further teaches a phase of the radio frequency signal at any one of the conductive rings is shifted relative to a phase of the radio frequency signal at conductive rings adjacent to the conductive ring (Column 6, Lines 48-53 and Column 14, Lines 59-62 and Column 19, Lines 55-62 – the radio frequency provided to adjacent conductors/electrodes as phase shifted/offset relative to each other).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the invention of Metcalfe in view of Roy by making a phase of the radio frequency signal at any one of the conductive rings is shifted relative to a phase of the radio frequency signal at conductive rings adjacent to the conductive ring, as taught by Roy, for the same reasons as discussed above for Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 6, Metcalfe in view of Roy disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. Metcalfe in view of Roy, as discussed so far, do not disclose the phase is shifted by π radians.
However, Roy teaches the phase shift in the signal provided to the electrodes results in a push on the propellant through the thruster (Column 13, Lines 29-33).
Therefore the phase shift is recognized as a result effective variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case the recognized result is providing a pushing force through the thruster.
Therefore since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the conductors/electrodes are provided a radio frequency that is phase shifted relative to adjacent electrodes/conductors, were disclosed in the prior art by Metcalfe in view of Roy, it is not inventive to discover the optimum phase shift by routine experimentation (In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618,195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977)), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the phase shift to be π radians in order to provide the desired pushing force through the thruster.
Regarding Claim 7, Metcalfe in view of Roy disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. It is noted that the limitation “the radio frequency signal causes a radial effective potential near the inner surfaces of the conductive rings” is Intended use – It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex paste Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Further Roy teaches that the radio frequency provides a potential across the electrodes (Column 14, Lines 25-27) - The limitation is a functional limitation which is performed by the claimed structure and does not imply any additional structure. The prior art discloses the claimed structure and thus would perform the same as the claimed structure thus meeting the functional limitation of the claim.
Regarding Claim 8, Metcalfe in view of Roy disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. It is noted that the limitation “the radial effective potential causes the ionization of the neutral particles away from the inner surfaces of the conductive rings and toward a central axis of the thruster body” is Intended use – It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex paste Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Further Roy teaches ionization of particles (Column 19, Lines 63-67) and the limitation is a functional limitation which is performed by the claimed structure and does not imply any additional structure. The prior art discloses the claimed structure and thus would perform the same as the claimed structure thus meeting the functional limitation of the claim.
Regarding Claim 9, Metcalfe in view of Roy disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. It is noted that the limitation “supplying the radio frequency signal to the conductive rings causes generation of an electromagnetic sheath around the thruster body” is Intended use – It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex paste Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) - The limitation is a functional limitation which is performed by the claimed structure and does not imply any additional structure. The prior art discloses the claimed structure and thus would perform the same as the claimed structure thus meeting the functional limitation of the claim.
Regarding Claim 11, Metcalfe discloses the invention as claimed and discussed above. Metcalfe does not disclose a direct current potential generator configured to apply direct current bias across the first plurality of conductive rings and the second plurality of conductive rings to cause a direct current potential along a central axis of the thruster body.
However, Roy teaches a propulsion system (Figure 1) with a direct current potential generator (Column 19, Lines 47-62 – the power source that provides the power to the conductors/electrodes generates a potential bias across the electrodes using direct current power, therefore the power source is a direct current potential generator) configured to apply direct current bias across a plurality of conductive rings (Column 19, Lines 47-62 – the power source/direct current potential generator potential bias across the plurality of electrodes).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Metcalfe by making the power source a direct current potential generator configured to apply direct current bias across the first plurality of conductive rings and the second plurality of conductive rings, as taught by Roy, in order to result in a smooth flow of propellant and increased thrust (Roy – Column 2, Lines 22-33).
It is further noted that the limitation “to cause a direct current potential along a central axis of the thruster body” is an Intended use – It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex paste Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Further the combination of Metcalfe in view of Roy generates a direct current potential bias across the plurality of conductors/electrodes and the limitation is a functional limitation which is performed by the claimed structure and does not imply any additional structure. The prior art discloses the claimed structure and thus would perform the same as the claimed structure thus meeting the functional limitation of the claim.
Regarding Claim 13, Metcalfe in view of Roy disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. It is noted that the limitations “the direct current potential causes acceleration of the ionized particles through the ion accelerator and ejection of the ionized particles from the opening at the second end of the thruster body” are considered Intended use – It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex paste Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). The limitations are functional limitations which is performed by the claimed structure and does not imply any additional structure. The prior art discloses the claimed structure and thus would perform the same as the claimed structure thus meeting the functional limitation of the claim.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metcalfe in view of Roy as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Raymond (U.S. Patent No. 11,038,477), hereinafter Raymond.
Regarding Claim 10, Metcalfe in view of Roy disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. Metcalfe in view of Roy do not disclose the radio frequency signal is supplied to the conductive rings through a direct current isolating capacitor array.
However, Raymond teaches radio frequency amplifier circuits usable in ion propulsion units (Column 16, Lines 4-11) that include the radio frequency signal is supplied to the conductive rings through a direct current isolating capacitor array (Column 10, Lines 26-34 and Column 14, Lines 30-36 and Column 16, Lines 4-11 – the radio frequency is provided to the through the circuitry to the electrodes/conductors through a series of capacitors that provide DC blocking/isolating in the circuit, therefore the series of capacitors make up an array of direct current isolating capacitors).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Metcalfe in view of Roy such that the radio frequency signal is supplied to the conductive rings through a direct current isolating capacitor array, as taught by Raymond, in order to provide filtering and output isolation within the circuit (Raymond – Column 10, Lines 26-34).
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metcalfe in view of Roy as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Allen (U.S. Patent No. 11,473,569), hereinafter Allen.
Regarding Claim 12, Metcalfe in view of Roy disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. Metcalfe in view of Roy do not disclose the conductive rings are connected by resistors.
However, Allen teaches an electric propulsion engine (Abstract) with electrodes/conductors, 230-235, that are connected by resistors (Column 12, Lines 18-25 – the cathodes/conductors are connected by resistors).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Metcalfe in view of Roy such that the conductive rings are connected by resistors, as taught by Allen, instead of power supplies between each electrode, as shown in Metcalfe, in order to maintain progressively more negative potentials to create an electric field vector (Allen – Column 12, Lines 18-25).
Claim(s) 14-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metcalfe in view of Berl (U.S. Patent No. 9,657,725), hereinafter Berl.
Regarding Claim 14, Metcalfe discloses the invention as claimed and discussed above. Metcalfe does not disclose a solenoid wound along an outside surface of the thruster body, the solenoid configured to generate a magnetic field for guiding the electrons resulting from the ionization of the neutral particles toward the second end of the thruster body where they combine with and neutralize the ejected ionized particles.
However, Berl teaches an ion thruster (Title) with a thruster body, 66, and a solenoid wound, 26, along an outside surface of the thruster body (the solenoid coils, 26, are wound along the outer surface of the thruster body, 66), the solenoid configured to generate a magnetic field (Column 4, Lines 31-34 – the coils generate a magnetic field).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Metcalfe to have a solenoid wound along an outside surface of the thruster body, the solenoid configured to generate a magnetic field, as taught by Berl, in order to enhance ionization efficiency (Berl – Column 4, Lines 37-40).
The limitations “for guiding the electrons resulting from the ionization of the neutral particles toward the second end of the thruster body where they combine with and neutralize the ejected ionized particles” are considered Intended use – It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex paste Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) - The limitations are functional limitations which is performed by the claimed structure and does not imply any additional structure. The prior art discloses the claimed structure and thus would perform the same as the claimed structure thus meeting the functional limitation of the claim.
Regarding Claim 15, Metcalfe in view of Berl disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. Berl further discloses the solenoid is wrapped along a length of the thruster body (the solenoid coils, 26, are wound along the outer surface and therefore along a length of the thruster body, 66). Thus the combination of Metcalfe in view of Berl would result in the limitations of Claim 15.
Regarding Claim 17, Metcalfe in view of Berl disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. It is noted that the limitations “the funnel is sized and shaped to cause compression of particles, with a compression ratio defined by a ratio of the funnel's exhaust opening to the opening in the first end of the thruster body” is considered Intended use – It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex paste Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Further Metcalfe discloses that the shape of the funnel increases the particle density, i.e. causes compression of particles (Paragraph 0127), and thus would have compression ratio defined by the ratio of the funnel's exhaust opening to the opening in the first end of the thruster body. The limitations are functional limitations which is performed by the claimed structure and does not imply any additional structure. The prior art discloses the claimed structure and thus would perform the same as the claimed structure thus meeting the functional limitation of the claim
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metcalfe in view of Berl as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Quang (U.S. Patent No. 12,006,923), hereinafter Quang.
Regarding Claim 18, Metcalfe in view of Berl discloses the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Metcalfe disclose a compression ratio (Paragraph 0127 - the shape of the funnel increases the particle density, i.e. causes compression of particles, and thus would have compression ratio.
Metcalfe in view of Berl do not disclose a compression ratio is in a range of 1 to 20,0000.
However, Quang teaches an electric thruster (Title) where the compression ratio of the intake effects the collection design and efficiency of the engine/vehicle (Column 2, Lines 31-35).
Therefore the compression ratio is recognized as a result effective variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case the recognized result is the collection design and collection efficiency of the engine/vehicle.
Therefore since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the thruster has a compression ratio, were disclosed in the prior art by Metcalfe in view of Berl, it is not inventive to discover the optimum compression ratio by routine experimentation (In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618,195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977)), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the compression ratio to be in a range of 1 to 20,000 in order to provide the desired collection design and efficiency.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Metcalfe does not disclose “the funnel configured to receive neutral particles and cause ionization of the neutral” it is respectfully pointed out that Applicant points to Figure 2A of Metcalfe as a basis for the argument but Figure 2A was not relied upon for the limitation. Applicant’s argument uses structure that is not relied upon for the rejection. Paragraph 0113 states that the charge generation method is contained within the one or more electrodes. In this case the charge generation method would be contained within the electrodes of the funnel of Figure 6B, which is cited as the base structure of the thruster body. Thus the charge generation method would be included in the structure of the funnel. Further, Paragraph 0113 describes a charged particle generator that receives neutral particle from the medium and generates the ions. This is shown in Figure 2B. Thus the charged particle generator being a part of the funnel would receive the neutral particles and cause ionization of the particles in the funnel thereby meeting the limitations of the claim.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the particle are not from an atmosphere) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In the current case the claim limitations do not require that the particle be from an atmosphere. A broadest reasonable interpretation of “generating thrust using particles in an atmosphere” is generating thrust using particles where the method occurs in an atmosphere. The limitation under broadest reasonable interpretation does not require the particles being from the atmosphere as Applicant argues. Further the method of generating thrust would be capable of being performed in an atmosphere. Thus Moorer discloses the limitations of Claim 20.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Metcalfe does not disclose the limitation of electrodes having “substantially constant radii” it is respectfully pointed out that Applicant states Metcalfe has continuously tapering electrodes towards the outlet of the thruster but does not cite where Metcalfe states continuously tapers. Per Paragraph 0127 of Metcalfe the enclosure is tapered to increase the mass density from segment to segment but does not state it is continuously tapered. Thus Applicant applies an unduly narrow interpretation of Metcalfe which is not supported by evidence. Further, Applicant appears to argue that because Metcalfe does not explicitly state the electrodes are a constant radii that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to reasonably interpret the two right most electrodes, 77, of Figure 6B from having a “substantially constant radii”. This is in conflict with Applicant’s admission that the use of “substantially” is used to avoid strict numerical boundary to a parameter. Applicant does not provide any tolerances or range that the radii must meet in order to be considered “substantially constant radii”. Thus one of ordinary skill in the would be able to look at Figure 6B and have a broadest reasonable interpretation that the figure shows the right two electrodes, 77, have substantially constant radii. Thus Metcalfe meets the limitations of Claim 3.
In response Applicants argument that prior cited does not teach the functional language of Claims 7-9, 11, 13-14, 17 and 19 it is respectfully noted that in each case the rejection addresses the functional language and that the structure to perform the function is disclosed. Applicant argues the use of an “Intended Use” rationale does make the prior art meet the limitations of the claim but it is noted that this is not a rationale used without reasoning. It is noted that MPEP 2173.05(g) is largely directed towards how to interpret functional language and how to interpret the corresponding structure to perform such functions. The current claims do not invoke 112(f) and thus the structure to perform these limitations is interpreted to be the structure provided in the claims. In each case the structure that is described in the claims and by Applicant’s specification is met by the prior art. Thus absent evidence that the functional language of limitations implies a structural difference between the instant application and the structure disclosed by the prior art the structure disclosed by the prior would be inherently capable of performing claimed functions. This inherency is in light of Applicant’s own specification. If structural differences do exist between the prior art and the instant application Applicant is invited to point to these differences and point to support in the application. Applicant further argues that rejections improperly use inherency to meet the functional language. However, it is noted that all the structural limitations of the claims are met and thus in light of Applicant’s specification the structure would be inherently of performing the same function absent evidence of differences between the prior art and the instant application. Applicant did not provide any evidence of why the same structure as claimed would not perform in the same manner.
With respect to Claim 7, the prior art of Metcalfe in view of Roy disclose a radio frequency generator that generates a radio frequency signal that is supplied to a plurality of conductive rings. The rejection provides evidenced that the structure would generate radial potential in Column 14, Lines 25-27 of Roy which further supports that the structure of the prior art would be capable of performing the functional language. Therefore absent evidence of a structural difference between the disclosed structure of the prior art and the instant application the structure as disclosed by Metcalfe in view of Roy is inherently capable of performing the functional limitations of Claim 7, specifically in light of Applicant’s specification.
With respect to Claim 8, the prior art of Metcalfe in view of Roy disclose a radio frequency generator that generates a radio frequency signal that is supplied to a plurality of conductive rings and further would be able to generate a radial effective potential as described above for Claim 7. The rejection provides evidenced that the structure would generate radial potential in Column 14, Lines 25-27 of Roy which further supports that the structure of the prior art would be capable of performing the functional language. Therefore absent evidence of a structural difference between the disclosed structure of the prior art and the instant application the structure as disclosed by Metcalfe in view of Roy is inherently capable of performing the functional limitations of Claim 8, specifically in light of Applicant’s specification.
With respect to Claim 9, the prior art of Metcalfe in view of Roy disclose a radio frequency generator that generates a radio frequency signal that is supplied to a plurality of conductive rings. Per the claim the only structure that is required to generate an electromagnetic sheath is the supply of radio frequency to the conductive rings. Therefore absent evidence of a structural difference between the disclosed structure of the prior art and the instant application the structure as disclosed by Metcalfe in view of Roy is inherently capable of performing the functional limitations of Claim 9, specifically in light of Applicant’s specification.
With respect to Claim 11, the prior art of Metcalfe in view of Roy disclose a direct current potential generator configured to apply direct current bias across the first plurality of conductive rings and the second plurality of conductive rings. The rejection provides evidenced that the structure would generate potential bias using direct current in Column 19, Lines 47-62 of Roy which further supports that the structure of the prior art would be capable of performing the functional language. Therefore absent evidence of a structural difference between the disclosed structure of the prior art and the instant application the structure as disclosed by Metcalfe in view of Roy is inherently capable of performing the functional limitations of Claim 11, specifically in light of Applicant’s specification.
With respect to Claim 13, the prior art of Metcalfe in view of Roy disclose a direct current potential generator configured to apply direct current bias across the first plurality of conductive rings and the second plurality of conductive rings further would be able to generate a direct current potential as described above for Claim 11. The rejection provides evidenced that the structure would generate potential bias using direct current in Column 19, Lines 47-62 of Roy which further supports that the structure of the prior art would be capable of performing the functional language. Therefore absent evidence of a structural difference between the disclosed structure of the prior art and the instant application the structure as disclosed by Metcalfe in view of Roy is inherently capable of performing the functional limitations of Claim 13, specifically in light of Applicant’s specification.
With respect to Claim 14, the prior art of Metcalfe in view of Berl disclose a solenoid wound along an outside surface of the thruster body. It is further noted that “along the outside surface” does not require the solenoid be along the entire length of the thruster body but only along a length of the thrust body. Per the claim the only structure required to perform the claimed function is a solenoid wound along an outside surface of the thruster body. Therefore absent evidence of a structural difference between the disclosed structure of the prior art and the instant application the structure as disclosed by Metcalfe in view of Roy is inherently capable of performing the functional limitations of Claim 14, specifically in light of Applicant’s specification.
With respect to Claim 15, the prior art of Metcalfe in view of Berl disclose a solenoid wound along an outside surface of the thruster body. It is further noted that “wrapped along a length of the thruster body” does not require the solenoid be along the entire length of the thruster body but only along a length of the thrust body, which may be a very small dimension. Thus since the solenoid has a length it is wound along the outside of the thruster body it meets the limitation “wrapped along a length of the thruster body”.
With respect to Claim 17, the prior art of Metcalfe in view of Berl disclose a funnel with a size and shape. The rejection provides evidenced that the structure would increase the density of the particles, i.e. compress the particles, in Paragraph 0127 of Metcalfe which further supports that the structure of the prior art would be capable of performing the functional language. Further it is noted that the term compression ratio does not itself describe a required value. Thus anything that provides compression of a flow will always have a compression ratio of the inlet to the outlet. The term “compression ratio” in this case does not provide any additional structure. Therefore absent evidence of a structural difference between the disclosed structure of the prior art and the instant application the structure as disclosed by Metcalfe in view of Roy is inherently capable of performing the functional limitations of Claim 7, specifically in light of Applicant’s specification.
With respect to Claim 19, the prior art of Metcalfe disclose a funnel with electrodes/conductive rings. The rejection provides evidenced that the electrodes produce electrons that neutralize charged particles in Paragraph 0078 which further supports that the structure of the prior art would be capable of performing the functional language. It is also noted that the claims does not provide any structure additional structure to provide the electrons to ejected particles but only that the funnel/conductive rings produce electrons. Therefore absent evidence of a structural difference between the disclosed structure of the prior art and the instant application the structure as disclosed by Metcalfe in view of Roy is inherently capable of performing the functional limitations of Claim 19, specifically in light of Applicant’s specification.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE ROBERT THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-4813. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Devon Kramer can be reached at (571)272-7118. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KYLE ROBERT THOMAS/Examiner, Art Unit 3741